Agenda Item 6.1.2
CONSULTATION QUESTIONS
Q1.Have we accurately summarised all the key national drivers for change and their findings or conclusions?
A.To include Communities First National Policy for disadvantaged communities.
Also WAG Extending Entitlement.
Q2.Are there any that we should add, or give more weight to?
A.Young people in transition from children’s services to adult services.
Children with mental distress.
Children/young people with complex health/social care needs who are
in need of housing.
Children in isolated rural areas.
Q3.Do you agree with our vision and overall aims for advocacy services for children and young people in Wales?
A.The voluntary sector would also need to be included in the integrated approach.
Q4.Should the key aspects be strengthened or amended in any way?
A.Causal advocacy would need to be included to ensure that emerging trends from individual cases are addressed.
Q5.Do these arrangements meet the requirements for accessibility and independence?
A.Each collaboration/partnership would need to use Project Management Planning to action the guidelines. Robust monitoring and evaluation systems would need to be introduced to ensure accessibility and independence.
Q6.Do you agree with the proposed staged approach of collaborative commissioning and have we correctly identified the areas which require priority attention within the New Service Model?
A.The staged approach is necessary for both new and existing Services. However, there is a need to review the priority need. Advocacy should be available for all children and young people who need it. Not all children and young people need advocacy services as they are able to assert the rights or self-advocate.
Q7.Do you agree with the principle of moving towards a more integrated model of provision?
A.Wrexham has an integrated model of provision and is pleased to promote this model to include the voluntary sector. Second Voice Advocacy Service demonstrates this model.
Q8.In what circumstances do you consider advocacy service should be available to schools?
A.Advocacy services should be available in schools via School Councils and for all circumstances, e.g. school exclusion, support to attend meetings etc.
Q9.How can we define a serious complaint and in what circumstances do you feel advocacy support would be important.
A.If a child/young person makes a complaint which is deemed serious to the young person this should be accepted and supported by the advocate, e.g. bullying, intimidation, abuse, discrimination, omission, i.e. choice of foods.
Q10.Are there other groups of children and young people that should be included in the service model two?
A.All children and young people who may need advocacy should be included in the service model.
Second Voice in Wrexham prioritises the “community of need” – those children/young people who require advocacy services.
Outreach services take the service out to some of the categories of young people mentioned in the priority listing.
- Hospital admission
- Young carers
- Young people unable to access appropriate accommodation
- Young people who have school phobia
Q11.Is the proposal for collaborative commissioning across local areas the most realistic and the best way forward to achieve improved access to independent, quality advocacy services for children and young people?
A.Collaborative commissioning is needed for sustainability. However the process may take longer to establish than documented. It is important to keep service delivery local.
Q12.How might collaborative partnerships be defined across Wales? Are there any existing partnerships relevant to your area and/or to advocacy services that could be used or further developed for this purpose?
A.Current service delivery in Wrexham is carried out in partnership, Health, Local Authority and the Voluntary Sector. Wrexham has an advocacy plan for all advocacy services for children and young people. This plan is currently out for consultation. It is a collaborative approach and it includes Second Voice. Wrexham’s model for children and young people was instigated via the Children and Young People’s Partnership Board.
Q13.What other influences on commissioning or commissioning drivers relevant to children and young people’s services do we need to take into account?
A.Reduced budgets across services.
A need for pooled budgets.
Transition for young people.
Children with dual diagnosis who may be marginalised:
- NSF targets
- SAF targets
- CAMHS strategy
Q14.How might the lead Children and Young people’s Partnership for collaborative commissioning be selected?
- Track record of taking the lead and delivering the service.
- Prior experience.
- Project Management Experience.
Q15.What are the barriers to establishing a lead Children and Young People’s Partnership lead commissioner for advocacy services, and how might they be overcome?
A.Limited additional resources
Realistic costings of the function.
The administration engendered
Q16.Which structural model outlined in section six do you prefer and why; model one or model two?
A.Model 2. This provides additional support and governance to the collaborative board; it also supports the delivery of advocacy services locally.
This model also replicates the model in Wrexham which is steered by young people and also has an Advisory Group.
Q17.Are there any other models that you think we should consider, and what are their key characteristics?
A.Consideration to be given to a Partnership covering a larger geographical area. Each partnership may take the lead on specific specialisms e.g. school exclusions, travellers and gypsy children and young people.
Q18.Are the roles and responsibilities of key commissioning partners outlined in section six sufficiently clear and robust?
A.This specific area needs further expansion particularly around the voluntary sector.
Q19.Are the commissioning principles outlined in section six sufficiently clear and robust?
A.A protocol to be agreed together with core principles – also terms of reference.
Q20.Are the proposals for governance and performance management sufficiently robust? Are there any that we have missed?
A.Measures need to be evident and compatible at all levels – children and young people /providers/commissioners.
Q21Do you agree that we have adequately identified the support and development needs to ensure the delivery of the service model proposed?
A.The support and development needs will vary from one Partnership to another dependent on knowledge, skills and experience. Time will need to be identified to enable the Partnerships to access the appropriate support and training.
Q22.What additional forms of support might be necessary?
A.One suggestion might be an appropriately skilled mentor to be assigned to each Partnership.
Q23.Are the timescales for implementation of commissioning service under the New Integrated Service Model (by 2008 for stage one and two) achievable – are there any constraints?
A.The timing may be unrealistic as it takes time to form and consolidate partnerships across different authorities and agencies. The constraint may be the actual time allocated to advance the work.
Q24.What will be the impact and cost implications on your business in introducing the New Service Model?
A.We have already introduced an integrated model in Wrexham.
Resources to adopt/adapt the integrated approach into other Partnerships will need to be realistically identified and provided as new funding.
Resources to finance advocates. Second Voice is a cost effective model which could be transferred across other areas.
Q25.Do you consider we should set up an Advocacy Unit as suggested above?
A.It is a good idea to have a Strategic Board which communicates directly with the WAG. This will ensure a national perspective. However, there is a fine balance between good governance and bureaucracy. The focus should be on aiding local implementation.
Q26.Would it be advantageous to set up a Board, i.e. monitor progress and advise Assembly Government Ministers?
- See above. Unclear about a Unit and Board. This needs clarification.
Assume Unit would provide operational support and Board would be looking to assure WAG of conformity to outcome measures, etc. Not sure that this would not become just another layer of bureaucracy for Partnerships to be answerable to.
Q27.What do you feel would be the minimum representation membership on the C & YP Advocacy Advisory Board?
- If it is decided to go ahead with this following consultation? – otherwise the question above is somewhat tokenistic.
Two people from each local authority area Regional Partnership.
Q28.Should advocacy services/providers be regulated?
A.There should be regulations to ensure a consistent approach to meeting national standards. These should be subject to a separate consultation.
Q29.Should advocates be recognised profession?
A.Work is currently being carried out to introduce a professional qualification. Current advocates in Wrexham who have undertaken OCN accredited training to continue to provide advocacy services but with a commitment to gain a professional qualification within a specified timescales.
Q30.What are the implications to your service in requiring registration and regulation of advocacy providers?
A.Some current advocates may not possess professional qualifications but are experts by experience. An effective APL process will be important.
CONSULTATION ON A NEW SERVICE MODEL FOR DELIVERING ADVOCACY SERVICES FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE
General Comments
P3.Last paragraph
‘The changes …….. and deliver services that are in the best interest of children and young people’.
Advocacy is clearly respecting the ‘wishes and feelings’ of young people not ‘in the best interests’.
P6.Third paragraph – second sentence – children with a disability not
‘disabled children’ + children who are asylum seekers.
P8.Second paragraph: again children with a disability.
P9.Third paragraph …….. and for the rights of children of secondary age – children of primary schools to be included.
P12.The key concerns and priorities:-
The need to prioritise access to advocacy for looked after children. An addition – and for all children and young people who are in need of advocacy.
P14.…….. to develop an integrated specialist advocacy service for all children who are in need of advocacy services.
P15.……… access to this kind of service – to include;
Children and young people with mental distress.
Children and young people affected by substance misuse.
Children and young people with dual diagnosis
Children and young people with severe disabilities
Children and young people living in a refuge.
P16. Third paragraph – there is a need for ongoing involvement with children and young people.
1
Agenda Item 6.1.2
Young people’s comments
1.What happens to young people who do not fit into groups 1 and 2?
2.Group 2 looks the better model because all areas contribute ideas to a steering group.
3.The children’s advocacy could be improved by explaining exactly what they do in a manner that everyone can understand. They should also fully explain what is expected of you and lay it out in a cool but informative way.
4.It needs to have boys on the front cover and not just girls.
5.A more detailed explanation of what Model 1 and 2 are.
6.To improve the comments page.
7.The layout and colours of the leaflet are good.
8.It needs more information on what the service does.
1